Ombudsman Investigation, Member for Bragg

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (14:32): My question is to the Premier. Whose view does he accept about the conduct of the former Deputy Premier and Attorney-General: that of the Ombudsman, a statutory officer independent of this parliament, or that expressed in the now discredited report of a majority of the select committee?

The SPEAKER: Premier.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry, Mr Speaker. With leave—

The SPEAKER: Well, on indulgence, member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: I will, with leave, yes.

Leave granted.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can he start again?

The SPEAKER: That may be convenient. Member for Heysen, please be seated. The suggestion, well made, is that you commence from the beginning.

Mr TEAGUE: My question is to the Premier. Whose view does he accept about the conduct of the former Deputy Premier and Attorney-General: that of the Ombudsman, a statutory officer independent of this parliament, or that expressed in the now discredited report of a majority of the select committee? With your leave and that of the house, I will explain.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. Member for Heysen, please be seated.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Standing order 97 requires that questions should not involve argument. Describing a report of a select committee to this house as 'discredited' constitutes argument.

The SPEAKER: I accept that point of order and I uphold it. Member for Heysen, you may wish to reformulate your question.

Mr TEAGUE: The report of a majority of the select committee, in that case. With your leave and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr TEAGUE: On ABC radio this morning, I heard the Premier to say 'there are two different points of view here, and that of course sets up a pretty difficult situation going forward', but he did not proceed to indicate whose view he accepts.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:34): I thank the member for Heysen for his question. Firstly, I would note the opposition's absolute determination to focus on the circumstances regarding the member for Bragg, and I welcome that that is clearly their overwhelming passion and desire in terms of focus in terms of matters before the state.

Given the opposition's relative commitment and focus on everything to do with Ms Chapman, I can gladly inform the people of this state that we are going to do everything we can to ensure that when it comes to matters of conflict of interest we are guided by a set of principles that is based upon what we think is in the best interests of all determinations that this government needs to make.

That task has been made inherently complex by virtue of the fact we now have an Ombudsman's report that acts contradictorily to the report of the select committee that informed this house's judgement. We have two different reports saying two very different things—completely opposite to each other. What we are going to do is undertake a piece of work, through the Attorney-General's Department, to make sure the judgements we make are consistent with the best interests of this state.

I am not too sure what is so hard to understand about that. Clearly a learned individual such as the member for Heysen would appreciate that those two exercises are distinct from each other and have come to completely different conclusions. We just want to do the right thing. We just want to make sure that we make the right judgements and that is exactly what we intend to do.